Good article but I think it does not adequately cover 2 points:
1 Timefame. A Russian victory now that allows a rematch in 5 years' time is actually a defeat. 101 war politics is to defeat your enemy to such an extent that they can never [or at least in several lifetimes] threaten you again. To do this Russia bascially needs something akin to the unconditional surrender of Ukraine and some sort of political accomodation with the West over its [IMHO] ultimate dismemberment. This objective is rational but will increase the stakes and encourage NATO escaltion and "doubling down". This is not about killing the Ukrainian military NOw but ensuring it never again becomes a threat AND NATO influence is permanently removed - especially from Odessa.
2 You assume Western political leaders are (a) rational and (b) well informed. I doubt either is the case. I very much hope the author is right but fear that the past is a good guide to the future. We have seen nothing substantive yet that really suggests anything other than a slow boiled frog syndrome and a drift to war amongst most western political leaders. We [I am western] appear to have second rate military and intelligence organisations also, and diplomatic corps that are contradictions in terms. So IMHO the lunatics are in charge of the "West's" assylum. Human stupidity and hubris should not be underestimated. History is replete with examples of non-rational behaviour. Very dangerous in the nuclear era, especially now the "end of history" has supposed to have occurred.
You beat me to it. These are exactly the issues I have with the article. It doesn't matter whether Russians have any "territorial ambitions". They will be forced to control/occupy the entire Ukraine. They simply cannot afford to have this festering sore at their border.
I also agree that the neocons who clearly want a wider war are neither rational nor well informed. They are driven by the increasingly fanatical ideology of Western exceptionalism and superiority. To be sure, we are talking here about the US fanatics. For them, it doesn't matter how dire the situation in Ukraine becomes. The worse the better and the Europeans can go to hell.
In short, the author seems to be far more optimistic than you or me. I look forward to the second part.
When considering the lead ups to World War I and World War II one could imagine the possibility that a broader frame exists within which to consider the current events in Ukraine. Before WW1, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was a trigger, but the big events sources lay deeper in a web of alliances, militarization, special interests group (big industry and the fantasies of high level gov/"high society" people being perhaps the most notable) considerations across Europe, and the various games played because of all that, which were less singuarly spectacular but still far more contributive. Similarly, the lead-up to WW2 saw not just direct aggressions like Germany's invasion of Poland, but also a series of lesser-noticed moves across Asia and Africa, such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's expansion into China, which were part of a broader destabilizing game, also driven by the confluence of many interest groups.
This might suggest that the situation in Ukraine might also be seen in a broader context of global games with associated regional conflicts during a time of big power shifts. Events in Asia and Africa and MENA (is that even it? Now or soon?) today, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and militant activities in the Sahel region and Israel VS [ ], though seemingly unrelated, could be part of a global realignment of power and influence and the associated games of interests groups jockying to hold on to what they've got/get more that mirrors the preludes to past global conflicts. While direct military conflict involving major powers like those in the World Wars might seem unlikely, the interconnectedness of all this suggests a very complicated, multi-dimensional (many-dimensional?) dynamic that can escalate in unpredictable ways.
With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces; exactly how the bitter end gets massaged by their (my) government is going to requires a thoughtful piece along the lines of this Aurelien essay.
I do not expect an admission that our weapons systems are overpriced, overly complicated and too brittle for peer level combat. What I do expect is the exhortation that we, the citizens have usurped too much of the nation's bounty and need to sacrifice for a massive uptick in inventories of these mechanical boondoggles.
I do not expect an admission that our military has no concept of how to conduct a real war. I do expect conscription to become a reality for our young once TikTok gets ripped off their phones.
I do expect many forms of trial balloons floated to explain away this unnecessary loss of international prestige by our government.
A: A "hot" WWIII is already going on, albeit via proxies for the USA/western hegemony side. The opening engagement of which was deliberately set up and triggered by a cabal in the West.
And B: The Western hegemony is not doing very well so far, the regime change and balkanization of the Russian Federation certainly has not gone as it had been originally planned to. Apparently the start was supposed to have occurred at least 2 years earlier and under a Hillary Clinton administration, with better agreement and compliance with the hegemony by China. Another reason to hate on "The Donald"...
"With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces"
.
That's not true at all. Americans were against sending more billions to the Ukraine. The Uniparty worked against their wishes. Read the new polls and opinions, people don't give a damn about the Russians and Ukrainians.
I was writing with regard to the belief that people hold about the capability of the weapons we produce. That is different from people wanting to supply those weapons to Ukraine. I did not make myself clear enough.
My concern is that people do hold an inflated view of our military prowess. Our weapons systems are not performing terribly well in Ukraine. Our ISR is first rate and that unfortunately has kept Ukraine in action for far too long.
I hope that candidates outside the duopoly get a lot of support. I am handicapped by subscribing to the "The New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal". An overwhelming number of commentators think that NATO could march to Moscow at whim. Those commentators both vote and give large campaign contributions. Those are the ones that our destructive duopoly cater too.
I stopped reading those newspapers a long time ago. They have clearly an agenda aligned with the Uniparty and they censor dissenting views in the comments session. I also find that the readers are boomers and older, usually male, with some wealth. They are a minority of the population, the common man in the streets is not commenting nor reading the Murdoch Journal. The Uniparty may cater to them, but it can only win elections in a fraudulent way. Let's see what happens. Did you watch the video on YouTube of the NYC construction union guy telling Bident "F U"? Hilarious. I have faith that one day the common man will wake up and upturn the establishment. We need another American revolution in these shores.
"If you have been a reasonably conscientious observer of the crisis in Ukraine since 2021, you will have found it harder and harder recently to make sense of what’s happening, or supposed to be happening, in and around that country. Even when it looks as though government statements and authoritative-sounding pundit pronouncements are actually accurate, they don’t necessarily seem to make much sense. Given the often conflicting claims of different governments, the special pleading of different pundits, and the complete failure of alleged “experts” of different types even to understand what they are seeing, getting a sense of what is actually happening, and what might happen next, sometimes seems impossible."
These statements don't need to make sense, and in fact, it does not matter whether these statements make sense or even are internally coherent (Russia is collapsing and at the same time about to overrun europe!) as long as they deliver the war that the rulers want.
Anyway, the sociopaths who rule over us have already invested so much materiele and reputational capital into Ukraine, already upended civil liberties at home and pretended that an act of war by the United did not happen, that they cannot back out now. Since there are not immediate costs for doubling down, that is what they will continue to do, until full-blown WWIII.
Arguably, the US doesn’t see the so-called, and supposed soon to be Russian victory as victory. It’s simply how things worked out. Almost predictably. The numbers of dead Ukrainians are regrettable since these are incapable of killing more Russians, though people will get killed is a given, and therefore fundamentally irrelevant. It’s a plus that it’s all about dead Slavs fighting Slavs and not folks from the stateside neighborhood
As long as Russian wealth and manpower is tied up and being depleted, what Russian reserves may be able to fill gaps doesn’t matter. The point is that “winning” has been occurring since forcing Russia’s hand after the Istanbul agreements were torpedoed. The game is on! At last.
As many American officials have noted, it’s a small investment of gdp, puts Americans to work, and is wasting Russians, and at the same time making money for those whose “interests” are really being defended. The list of bonuses so far include getting a foothold to replacing Russia as the go to energy supplier for Europe, keeping Germany under the thumb, field testing armaments, and studying Russian strategy. That’s not a complete list.
The recently authorized 60 bil only means more carnage to come. Dead Ukrainians??…yeah but…
Obviously, people dying is not on their radar and hasn't been for any part of the post WWII era. That's trivial.
With regard to US vs Russia, the whole point of urging Ukraine to reopen the Donetsk and Lugansk issue, was meant to be an excuse to impose "devastating" sanctions on Russia. It might have worked if China cooperated, but the Trump admin screwed that up. That result was an unequivocal failure, with downstream impact on China relations from accelerating global-scale non-dollar linkages.
On the other hand, it put Europeans into a dependent position especially after Nord Stream was blown up. No more possibility of any "near-peer" power center forming in direction. So with a little rearrangement of goalposts, that's both a geopolitical and financial win for the US.
The notion that US war strategists are stupid, or not paying attention to the right stuff is silly. There’s a very attentive, developed and interested military and strategic scholarship. Whether the US military makes right corrections to doctrine as it studies what’s afoot is another matter.
The accepted world view is suffused with a neocon ethic. That ethic is axiomatically American; the only values what matters. Whereas acting ethically to impose these isn’t realistic. Ethics do not apply in foreign policy except as informational grooming. Marketing is a fundamental strength. There’s no room to debate ethical ramifications. There are people whose entire professional focus is to devise strategy based upon a few simple first assumptions.
IMO they're both completely cynical, and plainly inept geopolitically. What's the strategic justification for driving the entire Muslim world closer to arch rival China, and driving Russia closer to China at the same time? There isn't one.
A negotiated peace with Russia and Iran was on the table a few short years ago. What has happened since is not strategic doctrine, it's reflexive, and a recipe for getting run out of Asia.
What's the strategic justification for antagonizing China with self discrediting moves like having Canada detain Meng Wanzhou, or supporting the HK protest movement? Or disabling the WTO by refusing to appoint judges for a quorum? There isn't one.
Are there smart people in the US State Dept who have a nuanced strategic picture of the world? Sure. They are reduced to some partial cleanup of the mess made by the Trump and now Biden entourage who actually make policy.
You are so wrong. It is sad that you don't see the cost. But continue with American arrogance. We see how that is going. Even Fiona Hill is ringing the alarm
You mistake my depiction of American arrogance, though I would call it dangerous, moral righteousness precisely in keeping with historical western imperial presumptions, as acceptance.
The proxy war angle for enforcing political will doesn’t require a victory, as traditionally defined. What’s to be avoided is clear cut losses to inferior opponents when having made massive mobilization efforts. Such hasn’t occurred since Vietnam. And as long as it’s an all volunteer army, massive mobilization for real peer on peer conflict cannot occur.
Indirect warfare is effective, circumvents several very cumbersome aspects of actual war mobilization, and limits dissension in the home front. Plus it can be spun. State of art armaments are showroom pieces, for military expos. Sales occur. It’s all good.
What mobilization procedures are in place for America? Its future wars, and must probably its war strategists don’t imagine home turf defense. By itself, America’s railroad networks and condition bear testimony to that. Likewise, stockpiles of armaments are for conflicts foreseen to be wars of attrition with peer enemies. Americas wars are “of choice”, and though they may go on interminably (until the point gets muddled, or other stuff takes precedence), these are not wars of attrition.
Your point about gdp and arms inventory levels is correct.
Thanks for this perspective. One bit of Western propaganda, very subtle, is to zoom all the way in on Ukraine with maps. This conceals the massive size of the conflict in question. Ukraine is a very big country. For comparison, the front line in the war is roughly the distance from the Gulf of Mexico to *St. Louis* - Or another comparison, roughly the entire length of California. Or yet another comparison, it's longer than the front line between Germany and France in WWI.
It's very big. When Western media says, "We sent twenty tanks!" it should be interpreted in light of such distances.
Украина в 2,5 раза меньше красноярского края в России. Это небольшая страна, с достаточно плотным городским населением. И столкновение идёт возле городских агломераций, перетекающих один в другой.
Concerning western escalation: we've been hearing for over two years now that escalation would be foolhardy, that the West cannot escalate, won't escalate, doesn't have or cannot spare the resources to escalate, that escalation is unpopular.
The West escalates anyway.
For that matter, it beggars belief that there is nobody in Whitehall or the Champ d' Elysee that can tell Sunak or Macron that he needs to quit letting his mouth write checks (cheques) that his ass cannot cash.
Let's not forget the Black Swan -- I mean White Swan -- of the unsustainable economic situation in the US. Today's US is not the Arsenal of Democracy which outproduced Germany & Japan in WWII. Today's US is significantly de-industrialized, deeply indebted, running a dangerous Trade Deficit, and giving neutral countries significant reason to doubt the value of holding financial reserves as US Dollars. China could cause chaos in the US simply by interrupting exports to the US and selling US bonds. At some point, that economic exposure will impact US ability to influence events.
My guess remains that what it will take to end the fighting is
(a) the Ukraine concedes territory to Russia or to new Russian-majority republics, and
(b) rump Ukraine accepts de-militarization with its neutrality guaranteed by a large heavily-armed UN-mandated Chinese peace-keeping force to ensure that both US/NATO and Russia stay out. Rump Ukraine will welcome this because China will also provide funds for reconstruction.
Of course, it is likely that the DC Swamp may try to veto that UN mandate -- at which point China may have to flex its economic muscles.
The Russians have set up a radio frequency for Ukrainian troops to request surrender. And many Ukrainian troops, in the way of small formations, have in fact surrendered. The last I read was that Russia has somewhere around 10k Ukrainian troops in captivity. Ukraine has very few Russians though; not even enough for frequent prisoner swaps (at this point).
However, one wonders how this will all play out. I expect the Russians will take Eastern Ukraine to the river and likely Southern as well. The latter thought though is very speculative--the West seems fixated on Odessa and may try something foolish to keep it. One never knows for sure. We'll see how it all plays out.
The Ukrainians who can surrender are the infantry on the frontline tasked with holding ground (i.e. not counterattacks). Relatively little was invested in most UA soldiers in this category. They mainly prevent Russian infantry from occupying sheltered positions, allowing the drone + artillery/rockets + satellite combination from behind them to do the work. It is the counter battery (+drone) exchange which affects the portion of the manpower which is more impactful to fighting ability.
Eventually the "pawn pieces" can run out too, but that implies a deep demographic annihilation. If Russian MOD stats are good enough to use as a comparative indication over time, the intensity of the counter battery fighting has been slowly but steadily rising. Despite claims of UA being out of ammo. This is also where NATO "advisors" would be most needed to fill gaps - e.g. crew chiefs for arty/rocket systems. Sustaining that is not implausible.
The category of forces tasked with counterattacking may be the first to be critically weakened, perhaps?
Zelensky may have to go the way of Kaiser Bill in 1918 or the way of the last Tsar.
When enough less than die hards….
NATO performance does not disprove theories of mechanized assault, it insists that the battle space be organized around screens and air/missile defenses, things NATO could not do for distances and available stores.
As to NATO running out of stores, that may apply to EU and UK, but US has massive war reserves, enough to keep Ukraine going, and if intent could get president drawdown for stores set aside for other theaters. That eventuality might please Kim Il jun.
NATO seems to think it could win with bombing, ignoring Vietnam, and the GWOT results.
Hope Kiev has a general who could depose Kaiser Wlod. And NATO get out of the way. World does not need a Thieu like puppet in Kiev.
Your outdated 'US is best' attitude is showing. Maybe massive reserves of obsolete F-16's, but artillery shells? They can't produce enough to supply a fraction of what the Ukraine wants. And most of the rest of the US's newer weapons either don't work properly or are too fragile or complicated for real use.
Kaiser Bill all but lost the war in October 1918 while Russia's position in February 1917 was quite stable and, apart from some minor logistical problems, there was no sign that the Russian Empire would crumble in several months. It was Russia's political structure that failed, not its army or war economy. It was a true black swan event.
Black swans are unforseen, what happened to Russian empire was not.
Sending Lenin & friends (along with a sizeable chunk of CASH) East to disrupt Russian Empire political structure was the trigger- Attacks do not always require army corps.
Those who caused that train ride East to happen and ESPECIALLY those who bankrolled the Bolshevik victory in civil war at the same time their (nominal) governments were sending paltry and futile expeditionary forces to Russia in a show of trying to fight those same Bolsheviks? Those people and their heirs need a closer scrutiny.
Как вы говорите "Ленин и его друзья" прибыли в Петроград в апреле 1917. Революция случилась в марте 1917. Ленин поднял власть упавшую из рук Временного правительства. Отречение на тот момент уже состоялось.
While there is some truth to that (the situation started spiraling out of control immediately after the February revolution but Bolsheviks certainly added fuel to the fire, and a lot of), in mid-February nothing could suggest such direction of events. Bolsheviks were a joke in early 1917 and even Lenin himself confessed that there is no chance of a socialist revolution in Russia in the coming DECADES (and even a bourgeoise one is rather unlikely). Economy-wise, Russia did well, after some problems in 1915, it brought its economy firmly to war footing by the second half of 1916, and did not even have to sacrifice its civil part. Yes there were some shortages here and there but nowhere near the level of Germany and Austria-Hungary where the war effort squeezed everything out of their economies and virtually sentenced their populations to mass famine. Warfare-wise, Russians stopped retreating and even launched counteroffensive in Galitzia, with mixed results, but Austrians were beaten to a pulp during it. They also successfully crushed the Turks in Armenia, driving them west all the way to Erzerum (while the British struggled with the very same Turks in Mesopotamia). 1917 were going to be even more successful for Russia, as the war production grew almost exponentially and new offensives would probably give a death sentence to Ottomans and Austrians.
What happened in February 1917 and later is still a mystery for me (and I am Russian who studied a lot of history). It was probably the first and the only time when a huge Empire crumbled while being on course of winning a great war. Even patchy Austria-Hungary stopped fighting only when it was clear that all is lost. Hell, even Turkey, that was going to fall without any war, held on. All the explanations of Russia's 1917 are insufficient IMHO.
I think the simplest explanation of what happened to Russian Empire with Bolsheviks might be that a technically allied country's intelligence service was looking ahead and used their connections to stir up as much trouble as they could as soon as they were sure that the USA had tipped the scales in Britain's favor sufficiently, along with a LOT of money handed out to what was hoped to be the most detrimental faction to the former Empire's future if they took power. The blowback from their attempts at arranging for Russia to be handicapped/incapacitated/broken up was MONUMENTAL. Rather like the blowback from this present attempt to break up Russia is shaping up? History is rhyming again???
Good article but I think it does not adequately cover 2 points:
1 Timefame. A Russian victory now that allows a rematch in 5 years' time is actually a defeat. 101 war politics is to defeat your enemy to such an extent that they can never [or at least in several lifetimes] threaten you again. To do this Russia bascially needs something akin to the unconditional surrender of Ukraine and some sort of political accomodation with the West over its [IMHO] ultimate dismemberment. This objective is rational but will increase the stakes and encourage NATO escaltion and "doubling down". This is not about killing the Ukrainian military NOw but ensuring it never again becomes a threat AND NATO influence is permanently removed - especially from Odessa.
2 You assume Western political leaders are (a) rational and (b) well informed. I doubt either is the case. I very much hope the author is right but fear that the past is a good guide to the future. We have seen nothing substantive yet that really suggests anything other than a slow boiled frog syndrome and a drift to war amongst most western political leaders. We [I am western] appear to have second rate military and intelligence organisations also, and diplomatic corps that are contradictions in terms. So IMHO the lunatics are in charge of the "West's" assylum. Human stupidity and hubris should not be underestimated. History is replete with examples of non-rational behaviour. Very dangerous in the nuclear era, especially now the "end of history" has supposed to have occurred.
You beat me to it. These are exactly the issues I have with the article. It doesn't matter whether Russians have any "territorial ambitions". They will be forced to control/occupy the entire Ukraine. They simply cannot afford to have this festering sore at their border.
I also agree that the neocons who clearly want a wider war are neither rational nor well informed. They are driven by the increasingly fanatical ideology of Western exceptionalism and superiority. To be sure, we are talking here about the US fanatics. For them, it doesn't matter how dire the situation in Ukraine becomes. The worse the better and the Europeans can go to hell.
In short, the author seems to be far more optimistic than you or me. I look forward to the second part.
Yes. I hope the second part is informed by the two posts above (marcjf and Krzysztof).
Very well written and informative as usual!
RE: "So we’re not heading for World War III?"
When considering the lead ups to World War I and World War II one could imagine the possibility that a broader frame exists within which to consider the current events in Ukraine. Before WW1, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was a trigger, but the big events sources lay deeper in a web of alliances, militarization, special interests group (big industry and the fantasies of high level gov/"high society" people being perhaps the most notable) considerations across Europe, and the various games played because of all that, which were less singuarly spectacular but still far more contributive. Similarly, the lead-up to WW2 saw not just direct aggressions like Germany's invasion of Poland, but also a series of lesser-noticed moves across Asia and Africa, such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's expansion into China, which were part of a broader destabilizing game, also driven by the confluence of many interest groups.
This might suggest that the situation in Ukraine might also be seen in a broader context of global games with associated regional conflicts during a time of big power shifts. Events in Asia and Africa and MENA (is that even it? Now or soon?) today, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and militant activities in the Sahel region and Israel VS [ ], though seemingly unrelated, could be part of a global realignment of power and influence and the associated games of interests groups jockying to hold on to what they've got/get more that mirrors the preludes to past global conflicts. While direct military conflict involving major powers like those in the World Wars might seem unlikely, the interconnectedness of all this suggests a very complicated, multi-dimensional (many-dimensional?) dynamic that can escalate in unpredictable ways.
With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces; exactly how the bitter end gets massaged by their (my) government is going to requires a thoughtful piece along the lines of this Aurelien essay.
I do not expect an admission that our weapons systems are overpriced, overly complicated and too brittle for peer level combat. What I do expect is the exhortation that we, the citizens have usurped too much of the nation's bounty and need to sacrifice for a massive uptick in inventories of these mechanical boondoggles.
I do not expect an admission that our military has no concept of how to conduct a real war. I do expect conscription to become a reality for our young once TikTok gets ripped off their phones.
I do expect many forms of trial balloons floated to explain away this unnecessary loss of international prestige by our government.
My gosh wake up to reality. The dramatization is bar none
@Julie
My version of reality is one where:
A: A "hot" WWIII is already going on, albeit via proxies for the USA/western hegemony side. The opening engagement of which was deliberately set up and triggered by a cabal in the West.
And B: The Western hegemony is not doing very well so far, the regime change and balkanization of the Russian Federation certainly has not gone as it had been originally planned to. Apparently the start was supposed to have occurred at least 2 years earlier and under a Hillary Clinton administration, with better agreement and compliance with the hegemony by China. Another reason to hate on "The Donald"...
"With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces"
.
That's not true at all. Americans were against sending more billions to the Ukraine. The Uniparty worked against their wishes. Read the new polls and opinions, people don't give a damn about the Russians and Ukrainians.
I was writing with regard to the belief that people hold about the capability of the weapons we produce. That is different from people wanting to supply those weapons to Ukraine. I did not make myself clear enough.
My concern is that people do hold an inflated view of our military prowess. Our weapons systems are not performing terribly well in Ukraine. Our ISR is first rate and that unfortunately has kept Ukraine in action for far too long.
I hope that candidates outside the duopoly get a lot of support. I am handicapped by subscribing to the "The New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal". An overwhelming number of commentators think that NATO could march to Moscow at whim. Those commentators both vote and give large campaign contributions. Those are the ones that our destructive duopoly cater too.
I stopped reading those newspapers a long time ago. They have clearly an agenda aligned with the Uniparty and they censor dissenting views in the comments session. I also find that the readers are boomers and older, usually male, with some wealth. They are a minority of the population, the common man in the streets is not commenting nor reading the Murdoch Journal. The Uniparty may cater to them, but it can only win elections in a fraudulent way. Let's see what happens. Did you watch the video on YouTube of the NYC construction union guy telling Bident "F U"? Hilarious. I have faith that one day the common man will wake up and upturn the establishment. We need another American revolution in these shores.
I read the two papers just to get a feel for the spin (propaganda) that our (actually not) government is trying to use.
I quite agree with you that "Who lost Ukraine?" is not an issue that will determine the election result.
I'm gonna search for the video. I always enjoy when the little people don't genuflect!
About the revolution, we need one. The current Constitution is our enemy.
Thanks for your reply!
Here, have fun. Zero Hedge wrote an article on that. Biden's popularity is the lowest since 1945.
https://twitter.com/DogRightGirl/status/1783516894638551480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1783516894638551480%7Ctwgr%5Ec1434da9ffb50b0f57ea3a409ec680dd6c0285c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fworst-70-years-biden-approval-rating-absolutely-dismal
"If you have been a reasonably conscientious observer of the crisis in Ukraine since 2021, you will have found it harder and harder recently to make sense of what’s happening, or supposed to be happening, in and around that country. Even when it looks as though government statements and authoritative-sounding pundit pronouncements are actually accurate, they don’t necessarily seem to make much sense. Given the often conflicting claims of different governments, the special pleading of different pundits, and the complete failure of alleged “experts” of different types even to understand what they are seeing, getting a sense of what is actually happening, and what might happen next, sometimes seems impossible."
These statements don't need to make sense, and in fact, it does not matter whether these statements make sense or even are internally coherent (Russia is collapsing and at the same time about to overrun europe!) as long as they deliver the war that the rulers want.
Anyway, the sociopaths who rule over us have already invested so much materiele and reputational capital into Ukraine, already upended civil liberties at home and pretended that an act of war by the United did not happen, that they cannot back out now. Since there are not immediate costs for doubling down, that is what they will continue to do, until full-blown WWIII.
Arguably, the US doesn’t see the so-called, and supposed soon to be Russian victory as victory. It’s simply how things worked out. Almost predictably. The numbers of dead Ukrainians are regrettable since these are incapable of killing more Russians, though people will get killed is a given, and therefore fundamentally irrelevant. It’s a plus that it’s all about dead Slavs fighting Slavs and not folks from the stateside neighborhood
As long as Russian wealth and manpower is tied up and being depleted, what Russian reserves may be able to fill gaps doesn’t matter. The point is that “winning” has been occurring since forcing Russia’s hand after the Istanbul agreements were torpedoed. The game is on! At last.
As many American officials have noted, it’s a small investment of gdp, puts Americans to work, and is wasting Russians, and at the same time making money for those whose “interests” are really being defended. The list of bonuses so far include getting a foothold to replacing Russia as the go to energy supplier for Europe, keeping Germany under the thumb, field testing armaments, and studying Russian strategy. That’s not a complete list.
The recently authorized 60 bil only means more carnage to come. Dead Ukrainians??…yeah but…
Obviously, people dying is not on their radar and hasn't been for any part of the post WWII era. That's trivial.
With regard to US vs Russia, the whole point of urging Ukraine to reopen the Donetsk and Lugansk issue, was meant to be an excuse to impose "devastating" sanctions on Russia. It might have worked if China cooperated, but the Trump admin screwed that up. That result was an unequivocal failure, with downstream impact on China relations from accelerating global-scale non-dollar linkages.
On the other hand, it put Europeans into a dependent position especially after Nord Stream was blown up. No more possibility of any "near-peer" power center forming in direction. So with a little rearrangement of goalposts, that's both a geopolitical and financial win for the US.
Yep
This is basically the view from State and Langley, summarized.
The notion that US war strategists are stupid, or not paying attention to the right stuff is silly. There’s a very attentive, developed and interested military and strategic scholarship. Whether the US military makes right corrections to doctrine as it studies what’s afoot is another matter.
The accepted world view is suffused with a neocon ethic. That ethic is axiomatically American; the only values what matters. Whereas acting ethically to impose these isn’t realistic. Ethics do not apply in foreign policy except as informational grooming. Marketing is a fundamental strength. There’s no room to debate ethical ramifications. There are people whose entire professional focus is to devise strategy based upon a few simple first assumptions.
IMO they're both completely cynical, and plainly inept geopolitically. What's the strategic justification for driving the entire Muslim world closer to arch rival China, and driving Russia closer to China at the same time? There isn't one.
A negotiated peace with Russia and Iran was on the table a few short years ago. What has happened since is not strategic doctrine, it's reflexive, and a recipe for getting run out of Asia.
What's the strategic justification for antagonizing China with self discrediting moves like having Canada detain Meng Wanzhou, or supporting the HK protest movement? Or disabling the WTO by refusing to appoint judges for a quorum? There isn't one.
Are there smart people in the US State Dept who have a nuanced strategic picture of the world? Sure. They are reduced to some partial cleanup of the mess made by the Trump and now Biden entourage who actually make policy.
You are so wrong. It is sad that you don't see the cost. But continue with American arrogance. We see how that is going. Even Fiona Hill is ringing the alarm
You mistake my depiction of American arrogance, though I would call it dangerous, moral righteousness precisely in keeping with historical western imperial presumptions, as acceptance.
The body count has worked so well for USA since 1947.
BTW the reason USA shadow war is so cheap to GDP is USA armament stores are so small as a part of its depleted real economy.
The proxy war angle for enforcing political will doesn’t require a victory, as traditionally defined. What’s to be avoided is clear cut losses to inferior opponents when having made massive mobilization efforts. Such hasn’t occurred since Vietnam. And as long as it’s an all volunteer army, massive mobilization for real peer on peer conflict cannot occur.
Indirect warfare is effective, circumvents several very cumbersome aspects of actual war mobilization, and limits dissension in the home front. Plus it can be spun. State of art armaments are showroom pieces, for military expos. Sales occur. It’s all good.
What mobilization procedures are in place for America? Its future wars, and must probably its war strategists don’t imagine home turf defense. By itself, America’s railroad networks and condition bear testimony to that. Likewise, stockpiles of armaments are for conflicts foreseen to be wars of attrition with peer enemies. Americas wars are “of choice”, and though they may go on interminably (until the point gets muddled, or other stuff takes precedence), these are not wars of attrition.
Your point about gdp and arms inventory levels is correct.
Seems like you are seeking drama.
Hardly. I simply try not to confuse my wishes with reality.
No you are blinded by your Western arrogance
Tell yourself that if you want. You seem intent on making the discussion all about me. But nothing about what I write.
Thanks for this perspective. One bit of Western propaganda, very subtle, is to zoom all the way in on Ukraine with maps. This conceals the massive size of the conflict in question. Ukraine is a very big country. For comparison, the front line in the war is roughly the distance from the Gulf of Mexico to *St. Louis* - Or another comparison, roughly the entire length of California. Or yet another comparison, it's longer than the front line between Germany and France in WWI.
It's very big. When Western media says, "We sent twenty tanks!" it should be interpreted in light of such distances.
Украина в 2,5 раза меньше красноярского края в России. Это небольшая страна, с достаточно плотным городским населением. И столкновение идёт возле городских агломераций, перетекающих один в другой.
Thank you Aurelien🙏
Concerning western escalation: we've been hearing for over two years now that escalation would be foolhardy, that the West cannot escalate, won't escalate, doesn't have or cannot spare the resources to escalate, that escalation is unpopular.
The West escalates anyway.
For that matter, it beggars belief that there is nobody in Whitehall or the Champ d' Elysee that can tell Sunak or Macron that he needs to quit letting his mouth write checks (cheques) that his ass cannot cash.
Let's not forget the Black Swan -- I mean White Swan -- of the unsustainable economic situation in the US. Today's US is not the Arsenal of Democracy which outproduced Germany & Japan in WWII. Today's US is significantly de-industrialized, deeply indebted, running a dangerous Trade Deficit, and giving neutral countries significant reason to doubt the value of holding financial reserves as US Dollars. China could cause chaos in the US simply by interrupting exports to the US and selling US bonds. At some point, that economic exposure will impact US ability to influence events.
My guess remains that what it will take to end the fighting is
(a) the Ukraine concedes territory to Russia or to new Russian-majority republics, and
(b) rump Ukraine accepts de-militarization with its neutrality guaranteed by a large heavily-armed UN-mandated Chinese peace-keeping force to ensure that both US/NATO and Russia stay out. Rump Ukraine will welcome this because China will also provide funds for reconstruction.
Of course, it is likely that the DC Swamp may try to veto that UN mandate -- at which point China may have to flex its economic muscles.
Это фантастический прогноз. Вы забыли об инвестициях в эту войну. Инвесторы не готовы пока выйти из убыточного актива, ожидая чуда
The Russians have set up a radio frequency for Ukrainian troops to request surrender. And many Ukrainian troops, in the way of small formations, have in fact surrendered. The last I read was that Russia has somewhere around 10k Ukrainian troops in captivity. Ukraine has very few Russians though; not even enough for frequent prisoner swaps (at this point).
However, one wonders how this will all play out. I expect the Russians will take Eastern Ukraine to the river and likely Southern as well. The latter thought though is very speculative--the West seems fixated on Odessa and may try something foolish to keep it. One never knows for sure. We'll see how it all plays out.
The Ukrainians who can surrender are the infantry on the frontline tasked with holding ground (i.e. not counterattacks). Relatively little was invested in most UA soldiers in this category. They mainly prevent Russian infantry from occupying sheltered positions, allowing the drone + artillery/rockets + satellite combination from behind them to do the work. It is the counter battery (+drone) exchange which affects the portion of the manpower which is more impactful to fighting ability.
Eventually the "pawn pieces" can run out too, but that implies a deep demographic annihilation. If Russian MOD stats are good enough to use as a comparative indication over time, the intensity of the counter battery fighting has been slowly but steadily rising. Despite claims of UA being out of ammo. This is also where NATO "advisors" would be most needed to fill gaps - e.g. crew chiefs for arty/rocket systems. Sustaining that is not implausible.
The category of forces tasked with counterattacking may be the first to be critically weakened, perhaps?
Sorry for the delay...
Here an italian translation:
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/04/ucraina-una-guida-per-i-piu-curiosi-la.html
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/24/politics/us-secretly-sent-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine.
If further proof that NATO has lost all fear of Russia were needed.
I wish I could say otherwise.
Zelensky may have to go the way of Kaiser Bill in 1918 or the way of the last Tsar.
When enough less than die hards….
NATO performance does not disprove theories of mechanized assault, it insists that the battle space be organized around screens and air/missile defenses, things NATO could not do for distances and available stores.
As to NATO running out of stores, that may apply to EU and UK, but US has massive war reserves, enough to keep Ukraine going, and if intent could get president drawdown for stores set aside for other theaters. That eventuality might please Kim Il jun.
NATO seems to think it could win with bombing, ignoring Vietnam, and the GWOT results.
Hope Kiev has a general who could depose Kaiser Wlod. And NATO get out of the way. World does not need a Thieu like puppet in Kiev.
"US has massive war reserves"
Your outdated 'US is best' attitude is showing. Maybe massive reserves of obsolete F-16's, but artillery shells? They can't produce enough to supply a fraction of what the Ukraine wants. And most of the rest of the US's newer weapons either don't work properly or are too fragile or complicated for real use.
Kaiser Bill all but lost the war in October 1918 while Russia's position in February 1917 was quite stable and, apart from some minor logistical problems, there was no sign that the Russian Empire would crumble in several months. It was Russia's political structure that failed, not its army or war economy. It was a true black swan event.
@Certorius
Black swans are unforseen, what happened to Russian empire was not.
Sending Lenin & friends (along with a sizeable chunk of CASH) East to disrupt Russian Empire political structure was the trigger- Attacks do not always require army corps.
Those who caused that train ride East to happen and ESPECIALLY those who bankrolled the Bolshevik victory in civil war at the same time their (nominal) governments were sending paltry and futile expeditionary forces to Russia in a show of trying to fight those same Bolsheviks? Those people and their heirs need a closer scrutiny.
Как вы говорите "Ленин и его друзья" прибыли в Петроград в апреле 1917. Революция случилась в марте 1917. Ленин поднял власть упавшую из рук Временного правительства. Отречение на тот момент уже состоялось.
While there is some truth to that (the situation started spiraling out of control immediately after the February revolution but Bolsheviks certainly added fuel to the fire, and a lot of), in mid-February nothing could suggest such direction of events. Bolsheviks were a joke in early 1917 and even Lenin himself confessed that there is no chance of a socialist revolution in Russia in the coming DECADES (and even a bourgeoise one is rather unlikely). Economy-wise, Russia did well, after some problems in 1915, it brought its economy firmly to war footing by the second half of 1916, and did not even have to sacrifice its civil part. Yes there were some shortages here and there but nowhere near the level of Germany and Austria-Hungary where the war effort squeezed everything out of their economies and virtually sentenced their populations to mass famine. Warfare-wise, Russians stopped retreating and even launched counteroffensive in Galitzia, with mixed results, but Austrians were beaten to a pulp during it. They also successfully crushed the Turks in Armenia, driving them west all the way to Erzerum (while the British struggled with the very same Turks in Mesopotamia). 1917 were going to be even more successful for Russia, as the war production grew almost exponentially and new offensives would probably give a death sentence to Ottomans and Austrians.
What happened in February 1917 and later is still a mystery for me (and I am Russian who studied a lot of history). It was probably the first and the only time when a huge Empire crumbled while being on course of winning a great war. Even patchy Austria-Hungary stopped fighting only when it was clear that all is lost. Hell, even Turkey, that was going to fall without any war, held on. All the explanations of Russia's 1917 are insufficient IMHO.
@Certorius
I think the simplest explanation of what happened to Russian Empire with Bolsheviks might be that a technically allied country's intelligence service was looking ahead and used their connections to stir up as much trouble as they could as soon as they were sure that the USA had tipped the scales in Britain's favor sufficiently, along with a LOT of money handed out to what was hoped to be the most detrimental faction to the former Empire's future if they took power. The blowback from their attempts at arranging for Russia to be handicapped/incapacitated/broken up was MONUMENTAL. Rather like the blowback from this present attempt to break up Russia is shaping up? History is rhyming again???
Lol , the USA lacks it especially with the situation in the Middle East